The concepts, oppositions, and hierarchies are constructed by power or social forces and, in turn, construct power. Discourses, serving specific interests, are conceived of ways of classifying and ordering by Foucault. Thus, it is the concepts, oppositions, and hierarchies which determine what is considered knowledge and truth or what is regarded normal and abnormal in a particular period. New Historicism employs Foucault’s technique of understanding a particular time’s episteme, i.e. the conventional mode of gaining and organizing knowledge which unites the diverse discourses and warrants their coherence within an underlying structure of implicit assumptions about the status of knowledge, to approach a literary text as a representation of or reaction to the power-structures in a given society.
Maddaddam 's narrative voice does both of these kinds of writting. To do so, and create in the reader a question about how myths and sacred texts are creater, it is written as speculative fiction. In “The Uses of Genre and Classification of Speculative Fiction” by R.B. Gill, the clasification of this genre is explained thorougly. Gill explains that genres should be classified accordingly to the categories of values that are present in the texts.
Bakhtin conceptualizes language as dialogic. He does this in the sense that specific uses of language or ‘utterances’ contribute dynamically to meaning-making because they are embedded in socio-cultural and historical contexts. Importantly, language is looked at as a site of struggle envisaging individuals engaged in creating a sense of themselves against dominant forms of institutional expectations. These crucial understandings converge with the main tenet proposed by Critical discourse analysis (cf. Fairclough,1995; Kress and van Leeuwen,1996) who examine ideological basis of texts and their uses as media as political or social control, and the maintenance of power structure.
In the following sections our choice of theories are presented and their relevance to the project, are discussed. The theories tend to provide us a guideline, which helps in relation to organize, select, and analyse our data. We have decided to use political, economical theories as well as a sociological theory, for the reason we aiming to obtain a broader image of the topic, not only one segment. Foucault Foucault theory of power is aiming to challenge the “mainstream”, Western concepts of the world and stimulate people to have a new way of comprehension about the notion of power and power relation. (Taylor, 2004) It advices an empirical analyses of power, with an analytical understanding rather than theoretical, where the perception of
Julia Kristeva, Mikhail Bakhtin and Roland Barthes are among the major critics who seek to give a thorough definition of the term, “intertextuality.” According to Kristeva, “Any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another. The notion of intertextuality replaces that of inter-subjectivity, and poetic language is read as at least double” (66, Original italics). It is obvious that this definition aptly recapitulates the main characteristics of intertextuality. First, any text relates in a way or another to other texts constituting a mosaic. Second, any text enthralls other texts within itself in a process that results in a metamorphosis of the text itself to a new form.
Finally, the third face of power according to Shapiro (2006, p.146) in his review of Luke's piece refers to the ability of a country to "manipulate" the agenda in order to get the desired outcomes. In Baldwin's view (2013), the last face of power is closely related to Nye's definition of power or Gramci's view of "hegemony" (Luke, 2005,2007). An example of this is the ability of the United States (US) to make other states embrace the "Washington Consensus" (Baldwin, 2013, p. 276). Because the concept of power remains controversial, the debates have stimulated scholars of IR to generate new terms of power, which means the concept is developing. We could not ignore that the heated conceptual debates have led scholars to develop several types of power, such as hard power, economic power, soft power (Nye, 1990,2002,2004,2007), compulsory power, institutional power, structural power, productive power (Barnett & Duvall, 2005), normative power (Diez & Manners, 2007), discursive power (Fuchs & Kalfagianni, 2009), network power (Grewal,2010), and smart power (Nye,
This research highlighted that media is a tool for neoliberalism in this new era which is basically controlled people’s mind. II. LITERATURE REVIEWS They are many types of media such as public relation, and advertising. Devereux noted in his book ‘Understanding
Furthermore, not only the view of the people towards heritage seem to change over an amount of time, but there seems to be also the assumption of a changed view of the conceptual notion of heritage in academia. Nowadays, scholars seem to regard the conception of heritage from a “constructionist perspective“. In this context, “selective past material artefacts, natural landscapes, mythologies, memories and traditions“ seem to be used as a “cultural, political [or] economic“ tool. Similar to the notion above of “identity“, this conception also implies the notion of heritage as “social construct“ that seems to be used as a means by authorities. Depending on what appears to be needed within a particular prevailing time, the view on something as heritage and of outstanding value appears to be “selected“.
Thus, a methodological program is demanded to construct a general theory from cumulative research findings and provide a comprehensive, reliable, up-to-date benchmark against which the existing variations can be examined. Another criticism on the existing studies was related to Harwood and Roy (2005)’s theory-building effort to link social identity theory with mass communication research. They emphasized the importance of the macro-level factors, referring to the broad contexts in which social identities are formed, such as media ownership, content control, and social and cultural conventions of a society (also see Reid, Giles, & Abrams, 2004; Smith & Phillips, 2006). The existing literature, however, overwhelmingly concentrated on the individual-level
Although criticism has a long history in general, translation criticism based on a framework is almost a new discipline that carries some objectives stated from different views. Based on Wodak (2001), the purpose of CDA is "analyzing opaque as well as transparent structural relationships of dominance, discrimination, power and control as manifested in language. In other words, CDA aims to investigate critically social inequality as it is expressed, signaled, constituted, legitimized and so on by language use (or in discourse)" (p. 2). Then, Fairclough and Wodak (1997) elsewhere pronounce the aim of CDA as making "the ideological loading of particular ways of using language and the relations of power which underlie them more visible" (p. 258). In addition to the above cases, according to Bloor and Bloor (2007) the aims of critical discourse analysis are as